Making Numbers Count: The Art and Science of Communicating Numbers

Human beings have trouble understanding numbers. Our brain haas a basic number system of one, two, three, four, five, and a lot. Distinguishing between the various "a lot"s is a challenge. This book focuses on the best ways to do it.

Humans can hold about 7 numbers, give or take a few in memory. Rounding numbers helps us to include numbers in memory. Comparing 10,000 and 4,000 can easily be stored in memory. 10,273 and 4,164 are much more challenging. Even better is reducing numbers to smaller human scale numbers. Instead of 10,000 to 4,000, a ratio of 5 to 2 is a much better scale. We also have great difficulty comparing big numbers (like a million and a billion). Making it into stories of smaller numbers helps the point. (Spending 50,000 a day, it would take 20 days to spend $1 million, but more than 50 years to spend $1 billion.)

An even better step is to relate the numbers ot something that people would understand. Florence Nightingale mastered this in advocating improved medical conditions. Statistics of improved soldier mortality rates were augmented with  comparisons to wartime mortality. Things seemed much more real when expressed in additional men killed in battle.

Comparing large numbers to items that people understand makes them even more real. The "understanding" can depend on the audience. For covid-19, different places would use different terms to express appropriate social distancing. "One surfboard" is more real than "6 feet". (However, some places got a little too cute with numbers like "1.5 mountain bikes.)

Another example was using analogy to express the size of the Evergiven that blocked the Suez canal. Ths ship is a quarter mile long. However, this is not a length we commonly understand. Calling it "as long as the Empire State Building laying on its side makes the distance much more relatable."

Knowledge of how the brain understands numbers can help make communication of ideas much more powerful. However, to be successful, the underlying story must be valid. (Stories of "Bezos earns enough to buy a car every second" sounds powerful. However, would you also say that this month as Amazon stock fell he lost the equivalent of two Teslas every second?) By having solid numbers with a good story we can get our point across best.

The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race

 

The Code Breaker explores the developments in gene editing technology through the life of Nobel Prize winner Jennifer Doudna. She helped develop CRISPR to edit genes. Others helped apply this to various life-forms including humans. There is plenty of infighting and maneuvering in the process. Science is about collaboration and the pursuit of knowledge. However, there is also the goal to be "first" and take the credit. Some behind the scenes manipulation is often done to make sure certain papers and patents take priority. Patents and commercialization also lead to other shenanigans that interfere with the pure pursuit of knowledge. The Covid-19 epidemic helped science move back to a more collaborative approach. Research was shared in real-time and people were able to quickly work on new tools. The new vaccines are enabled through past research that allows more direct manipulation of genetic sequences.

The story of Watson, the godfather of the double-helix also comes into play. He was shunned because he has seen a genetic relationship for many things. He "crossed the line" when he advocated a genetic relationship between race and intelligence. This seems very offensive to our culture. The two concepts that lack concrete definitions and genetic identity.  Perhaps there are genes associated with certain appearances that are also correlated with certain cognitive abilities. If we call it race and intelligence, it is taboo. But could research be done to investigate genes related to  mental capability and appearance?

The taboos and ethics could get very interesting as the gene editing technology becomes more available. The initial "customized" baby in China was shunned. However, we already do genetic testing and often abort fetuses with "less desirable" traits, like Down's syndrome. Gene editing could result in greater customization. But will we know enough about these customizations to make good decisions? Might we accidentally wipe out a mutation that is necessary for later survival? Could a rogue entity produce a "gene bomb" that wipes out humanity through a custom mutation.

The book also profiles other people involved. Some of the most interesting are the "DIY" gene manipulators. These are "makers" that use gene editing technology on their own, often on themselves. Will biology replace computation of the new area of innovation?